Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 2697
[2025:RJ-JD:6579]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 353/2025 Poonaram S/o Jeetu Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Sadokan , P.s. Rol Nagaur Presently Chenar , P.s. Kotwali,nagaur (Raj)
(Now In Judicial Custody At Central Jail Jodhpur)
----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 15685/2024 Pradeep S/o Premaram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Jogau, P.s. Jhab, Dist Sanchore, At Present Vishnoi Ki Dhani, Bhakhariwala, P.s. Rohat, Dist Pali (Raj.) (Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 15686/2024 Santosh Ram S/o Bhikha Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Khoja Ka Mohalla, Deh Ps Surpaaliya Dist Nagaur (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)
----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Foja Ram Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi Mr. Ram Niwas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Hanir Singh Bhati, C.I., SHO, P.S. Kudi Bhagatasani, Jodhpur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
03/02/2025 These second applications for bail under Section (483 BNSS)
439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.97/2024 registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar, Jodhpur City West, for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21 and 29 of NDPS Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case.
Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, on
31.05.2024, SHO, P.S. Jitendra Singh recovered psychotropic substance (MD) weighing 328 Gms. from the conscious possession of co-accused Hardhana Ram and Pradeep. As per the prosecution, psychotropic substance (MD) weighing 20 Gms. was recovered from petitioner- Pradeep which is below commerical quantity.
Learned counsel submitted that no psychotropic substance/contraband has been recovered from the conscious possession of petitioners namely Poonaram and Santosh Ram. No case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of conjunctures and surmises.
Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioners.
Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the present petitioners, the present case is not fit for enlargement of petitioners on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner Santosh Ram had procured the psychotropic substance (MD) from co-accused Hardhana Ram. Thereafter, Petitioner- Santosh Ram had sold the psychotropic substance (MD) to Poonaram, who in turn sold it to Chotmal @ Rajmal.
This Court, looking to the nature of allegations against the present petitioners, while order dated 15.01.2025 directed learned Public Prosecutor to keep the investigating officer along with C.O.
diary present before this Court.
The investigating officer while responding to the pin-point questions asked by this Court as to how much quantity of the psychotropic substance was procured by the petitioner- Santosh Ram from co-accused Hardhana Ram and what was the quantity of psychotropic substance sold/ handed over by him to Poonaram, the investigating officer conceded that no specific details in this regard are available on record or in other words, there is nothing on record to indicate the quantity of psychotropic substance procured by the petitioners from co-accused Hardhana Ram.
This Court further prima facie finds that apart from the confessional/ disclosure statements of petitioners and co-accused persons while they were in custody, there is no other direct evidence available on record indicating their involvement in commission of the alleged crime. As a matter of fact, there is nothing on record to ascertain the quantity of psychotropic substance allegedly supplied to the petitioners by the co-accused Hardhana Ram and Prabhu Ram. This Court further prima facie finds that though the petitioners are having criminal antecedents but, none of the case pending against them pertains to their involvement in illegal trade of psychotropic substance/ contraband above commercial quantity.
In the prima facie opinion of this Court, the twin conditions enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied in the present case. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be accepted.
Consequently, these second bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-peti
